Correction: You can change jobs, but the green card process needs to start again but you keep your priority date. EDIT: You can change jobs to another "similar" position i.e. the job responsibilities should be similar. You can't move from an individual contributer to a manager position for example. In this case, the green card application will have to be done again.

> That gives the employers full control of the employee

Only if you let them. You are free to leave to another job, but many are risk averse. The employers expolit this; personally I am a risk taker so I don't see this as a hindrance.

> So, hundreds of thousands highs killed immigrants

Calling each and everyone highly skilled is questionable. A lot of H1B employees (and local employees for that matter) do not do highly skilled work, relatively speaking. I know this is controversial statement, but please be honest and avoid hyperbole.

Will you risk your family getting deported due to a clerical error? Once H1B lose his job, he and his family has to leave the country in 15 days. Sell his house, pull kids out from school, etc. All this arises whenever H1B tries to change the job.

It's extremely painful secret to keep -- it's unfair to be unable to talk to coworkers about your future plans (as instructed by legal council), and one that detriments career growth (you're forbidden from discussing early on that you are likely to quit, at a time when it may be reconcilable with your current employer, and lead to better things: new positions, pay rises, etc.).

I usually drop hints about a pay raise or change of responsibilities and if my manager doesn't oblige within a reasonable amount of time, then I know it's time to leave. It's nothing personal, but if someone else values me more than my own employer I'd rather seek greener pastures.

I have the I140 petitions from the two employers that I had applied with. This sounds like you are talking about consulting companies who hold their employees hostage. No legitimate company can do that and you have legal recourse if they do.

This thread is discussing a law -- that targets only consulting companies.

>No legitimate company can do that and you have legal recourse if they do.

That is not correct. There is nothing an H1B employee can do if his employer does not share the copy of I-140.

I expect the language of Rep Issa's bill for this session Congress to be largely unchanged.

"Exempt" H-1B employees are not counted when determining whether or not an employer is H-1B dependent. Generally, an employer is H-1B dependent if over 15% of their employees are nonexempt H-1Bs.

The old criteria for exempt status were:

(a) at least $60k annual salary OR (b) Master's degree

The new criterion proposed in the bill is:

(a) at least $100k annual salary

This explicitly targets companies like Infosys, Tata, etc. who use hordes of H-1Bs but pay them just over $60k or ensure that they have Master's degrees.

Microsoft, Google, Amazon, et. al. will still be able to employ hordes of H-1Bs but they will be unaffected due to the high paying nature of the work.

Secondly, you are asserting that clerical errors are commonplace, where is the data for this? Anecdotal data doesn't count, since I don't know of anyone who was denied an H1B due to a clerical error. You might claim that you know a bunch who lost their visa. This discussion then degrades to a moot point without actual data.

But it is also true that many folks are not aware of these risks. I have many friends in the States on H1B, many are completely unaware of this. Most have good employers so I doubt this will be a problem, but there's not as much awareness as there should be.

Everytime there is an article about H1B, people start flinging "slavery" and "indentured servants". Please be honest and don't analogize H1B hurdles (which I agree exist) to situations where people were actually killed.

If you don't like the indentured servitude example, take minimum wage. If it didn't exist, many people would still be ok with being paid less. We have collectively decided that that is a bad thing. We have collectively decided that underpaying people is bad even if they choose to be okay with it. We don't say "hey, you chose an underpaying job over no job at all, you can't complain about it".

Choice is a red herring in these discussions. Nobody is saying that H1B workers were forced into this. Folks are well aware they made a choice. That does not affect the argument that part of the "con" side of the choice is something that shouldn't exist in our society. You're free to disagree with that argument, but the "folks chose it" is not a rebuttal because that was never the premise.

A lot of people on this thread sound like they've come nowhere near close to one of the bad scenarios, and have no awareness of them.

I see the practical side of things, which is either I take it or leave it, as I have no vote in this matter. And if I'm taking it, I'm making sure that I develop my skill set so that I make myself invaluable in future employment or if I venture on my own (and this doesn't have to be in the US), rather than wasting my brain cycles and waiting for this elusive piece of paper from the US government.

I think you're seeing it from a personal POV, where you have a tradeoff where you've made a valid choice with what you have found to be a net gain. And you did explicitly mention that you're speaking for yourself initially. This is all a fine POV to have and I mostly agree with it; I know many people who have made a similar analysis and come to similar resolutions.

My point is about "I've said this in previous posts as well, nobody forces you to take an H1B, you chose to take it", which is a more general statement about all H1B takers. I find it a bad precedent to set to accept that kind of argument; because like I said the discussion isn't about choice in the first place (and accepting such arguments distracts the decision). Like I said, it's fine to disagree with "H1B putting employees on a leash should be stopped", just don't use choice as an argument there :)

And BTW, I got my H1B in the 2008 lottery and had to go through lean times during the recession. So it's not as if I've had a smooth ride all along.

- Indefinite wait for a GC for Indian citizens

- Not being able to start your own business (there are caveats)

I am not a lawyer, and the following is not legal advice: get your own (experienced) immigration lawyer, and ask them about what I've heard one lawyer call "cost-effective employee retention plans". It can include threatening to unfairly ruin an employee's chances of ever getting another US visa if they leave the company. As in, you may never set foot in the US again. I'm not sure people can relate to how horrible this is unless you've unfortunately lived through it.

Unless you do something nefarious (spying, stealing etc.) no legitimate company would go after someone. And thinking about it logically, the company has to spend a lot of resources to prove this in the first place. "Innocent until proven guilty"

> And thinking about it logically

Oh no.

My #1 advice to potential visa workers would be to get your own immigration lawyer. My #2 advice would probably be to stop reasoning about things logically. What matters is the law.

You're implying that it's illogical a company would go after someone like this. I know for a fact they do. And, it's illogical. Knowing it's illogical is little comfort for those visa workers hurt by it.

> the company has to spend a lot of resources

Not necessarily. In one situation (I don't want to describe in detail here), it requires almost zero effort from the employer. And I know for a fact it happens.

I don't understand, what's the issue when the company gets sold? What bearing does that have on your visa apart from the change of employer filing? If Oracle bought Sun (two legitimate companies), it would be a change of employer which is a straightforward process, or am I missing something?

You were making the point of choosing a legitimate company vs a shady company, as a way to mitigate risk. Which is a good idea. But it's also worth noting that -- especially in the tech industry -- a good company one day can be bought by a shady company the next. (Although I'm not saying Oracle is shady, I didn't stick around long enough to find out.)

Also, if a company doesn't purchase all assets and liabilities (happened to one company I know of last month), and instead acquires pieces, then it may not be a straightforward change of employer.

Yes, getting fired sucks if you're on an H1B but your comment doesn't apply to job changers generally. H1B visas are transferable (with a little paperwork) so an employee looking to move jobs just needs to ensure that they have their ducks lined up and that any required paper work is filed - usually that means lighting a fire under the HR team of the new employer to make sure it doesn't slip through the cracks.

1. You can start working for the new employer as soon as the petition has been sent out. For example, as soon as you have a FedEx/UPS tracking number for the petition, you can start the new job (even before receiving a Notice of Receipt).

2. You get a Notice of Receipt (form I-797C) usually in less than a week (and usually in about 3 days), if the petition was mailed in with overnight shipping.

3. Now receiving a Notice of Approval (form I-797A or I-797B) -- i.e. the actual adjudication of the petition, typically takes a couple of months with regular processing, but only 15 business days with premium processing.

However, if your I-94 is still valid, being out-of-status on H-1B isn't really that big of a deal. All you need to do is fly out of the country and return, in order to fix your immigration status. The new employer can file an H-1B and request consular processing. The only problem with being out-of-status is that Adjustment Of Status (AOS) is no longer possible, so you have to fly out and fly back in, before you can start your new job. (You'll get an I-797A consular processing approval instead of the I-797B AOS approval.)

USCIS does not deny petitions for being out of status, and in general, if any lack of legal status is for a period of less than 6 months. You don't need to get a new visa stamp either, if your current stamp is still valid. But if/when you renew your visa at a consulate, just make sure to disclose that you were out of status on the DS-160, as failing to do so could get you denied for lying. But if your upfront about it and disclose it, they most likely won't even ask you a question about it.

And yes, you are illegal in the country, but if your I-94 is valid, you have "lawful presence" but you do not have "legal status" (I know it sounds contradictory) and you are still within your "period of authorized stay". But fundamentally, you are consider to be illegal despite a valid I-94 due to being out-of-status, and you can be deported, but it is very unlikely that DHS will send ICE agents to your home to arrest you and forcibly throw you out of the country.

I've quit a job while I was on the H-1B, and I stayed while being out-of-status in the United States for 4 months after that. I was feeling a bit burned out, and didn't even look for a job for 3 months. In the fourth month, I created a profile on Hired.com, got several interview offers, did a full onsite in the first week, and had an offer by the end of the week. My H1B visa stamp in my passport was still valid, but I decided to get it renewed anyways, just to be sure, so there wouldn't be any trouble at the port-of-entry.

This is where it gets tricky. Within this 3 years I need to get a new PERM approved by the new employer. So, say I set aside 1 year for the new employer to get all the internal budgeting approvals and initiate my GC process. Then it takes at least another 6 months (no attorney's file PERM within 6 months these days) to file the PERM. And, then say another 1 year to get the PERM result. So, this will take me 2.5 years into my 3 years limit. Now, god forbid, if the PERM gets denied due to clerical error. There is not time left for another try. Pretty much pack-up and leave.

I was able to transfer two jobs using the I140 from my first job. My case is clearly not an outlier.

> Now, god forbid, if the PERM gets denied due to clerical error. There is not time left for another try. Pretty much pack-up and leave.

No, you can use your old I140 to extend your H1B for another 3 years (when I changed jobs, that's what I did)

> So, say I set aside 1 year for the new employer to get all the internal budgeting approvals and initiate my GC process

On one hand, you claim that it takes a year for the employer to get your GC going. And now to withdraw it (which will include the same filing fee + lawyer fees - time spent= thousands of dollars) it takes them less than a month (or few months) to budget this?

No proper company would want to spend another penny on an outgoing employee. And this is a completely sane assumption. You can choose to disagree, in which case I'm sorry to say, you're paranoid.

Yeah right. You make it sound like this witch hunt is normal course of action. It clearly is not in a legitimate company.

It's now officially 60 days, per new rules issued by DHS last year under Obama: https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes-fin...

"Under the final rule, DHS may also authorize a grace period of up to 60 days in the E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, and TN classifications during the period of petition validity (or other authorized validity period). See final 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2). In response to public comments, DHS is retaining this provision while adding the O-1 visa classification to the list of nonimmigrant classifications eligible for the 60-day grace period. To enhance job portability for these high-skilled nonimmigrants, this rule establishes a grace period for up to 60 consecutive days, or until the existing validity period ends, whichever is shorter, whenever employment ends for these individuals. The individual may not work during the grace period. An individual may benefit from the 60-day grace period multiple times during his or her total time in the United States; however, this grace period may only apply one time per authorized nonimmigrant validity period. DHS believes that limiting this grace period to one instance during each authorized validity period balances the interests of nonimmigrant flexibility with the need to prevent abuse of this provision.

This 60-day grace period further supports AC21's goals of providing improved certainty and stability to nonimmigrants who need to change jobs or employers. The 60-day grace period would provide needed flexibility to qualifying nonimmigrants who face termination of employment prior to the end of their petition validity periods. The grace period, for example, allows such nonimmigrants to remain in the United States without violating their status and potentially obtain new job offers from employers that seek to file new nonimmigrant petitions, and requests for an extension of stay, on their behalf. In such cases, even though prior employment may have terminated several weeks prior to the filing of the new petition, DHS may consider such an individual to have not violated his or her nonimmigrant status and allow that individual to extend his or her stay with a new petitioner, if otherwise eligible. If the new petition is granted, the individual may be eligible for an additional grace period of up to 60 days in connection with the new authorized validity period."

Finally, the final rule at 8 CFR 214.1(l)(3) makes clear that the nonimmigrant worker, during either a 10-day or 60-day grace period, may apply for and, if otherwise eligible, be granted an extension of stay or change of status. The beneficiary may also commence employment under H-1B portability per § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(H), discussed in some detail below, if otherwise eligible. To further effectuate the intended purpose of these provisions, DHS is also making clarifying edits to the regulatory text at § 214.1(l)(2), and (l)(3)."

Reference: It's in a Federal Register Document (Citation: 81 FR 82398), under Section G "Nonimmigrant Grace Periods", linked here: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-27540/p-553

The document above states: "This final rule is effective January 17, 2017".

This is not true in practice. There is a rule saying that, but it has never been enforced. As long as you don't leave the country, you'll have no problem looking for a new job for however long that takes.

At least that's what my immigration lawyer told me many years ago.

I actually have done that.

ICE is very slow to deport even the categories they actually prioritize. Millions keep living here for decades. They're not monitoring traffic court for unemployed engineers.

Sure, anything can happen, but the risk of dying in traffic or a crime is far more real than this.

This has been recently changed though giving a grace period of 60 days and goes into effect from Jan 17:

https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes-fin...

So while I certainly agree with you that "they cannot change job" is inaccurate I also believe the statement "you are free to leave to another job" is misleading. You have some very limited mobility rights, but nothing approaching what a free member of the labor market would have (sadly, this is a big part of the appeal of these visas to many employers).

Remove the link between H-1B visa holders and their employers and suddenly all that wage depression disappears!

In Japan, while an employer can sponsor your work visa, after you obtain the visa you can change jobs at will (so long as its still within the broad category of visa you were given). You just need to signal the change of employer to the immigration office.

You SHOULD be free to quit, you're right about that. But some companies have figured out ways to stop it. If anyone is ever in that situation -- you have to get your own immigration lawyers to represent you, and not the company.

Everyone has their priorities, and in my mind I'm clear about mine.

Those same law firms hire lobbyists to make sure the system remains complicated and inefficient. Also, all the law firms that service tech companies have almost 100% of the work done by recent college grads for very low pay. Ever wondered why your L-1/H-1/I-140 support letter has so many errors? It's because it was a generic template that some recent college grad spent an hour on and you paid $3000 for an attorney to sign the G-28 form. Oh, and many immigration lawyers haven't even passed the Bar exam for the state they practice in--they can practice having passed the Bar in any state. These are the bottom of the barrel law jobs, IMHO.

He worked for the WSJ and one of the requirements of him taking the role was that we all got green cards.

If the laws are fixed by, for instance, making it far easier to switch jobs on a visa, H1B workers will be treated a lot better. Demand for visa workers will probably drop somewhat but it will be more in line with what the visa program was made for: to hire talent not slaves.

Ultimately, the tremendous wait times for everyone in the 00s, and now the tremendous lines only for a few countries, come down to the maximum number of green card numbers being vastly inferior to the number of people that qualify for said visas and are already living and working in the US.

Even in cases where your employer isn't trying to actively exploit you, the difficulty at changing jobs during the green card process depresses wages. I come from Europe, but I came in as an EB3 in 2000, so I had to wait a good 7 years. I was the highest paid engineer in our small department, and the only foreigner, but I was worth a lot more in the open market than what my employer paid. My salary tripled in the next three years afterwards, as I was paid an entry level salary while being qualified for being a principal engineer at a far bigger shop.

But everyone talks about the H1B program, instead of just opening permanent residency to people that are, in practice, already permanent residents, just with less rights.

Most companies already pay for the attorney expensed once you change employers i.e., PERM, I140 etc.

The only countries that hit this limit are India, China, Philippines, and Mexico. The 120,000 global quota still applies to the rest of the World. Hence, there still are these potential long-ish delays, even if you're not from one of those four countries.

In essence, we have a limited "guest worker" program that allocates most of the economic benefits to the company (in terms of a compliant workforce that has little incentive or ability to take their skills to a competing company that might offer a better salary or career options) while allocating most of the costs to the actual H1B workers AND the US Citizens and permanent residents who have to compete with a pool of workers that will accept lower pay with little in the way of bargaining power. Great deal for companies. Terrible deal for individual workers (on both sides).

I can sympathize with a company having trouble hiring talent. There is an acute shortage of capable, knowledgeable workers trained in the skills that industry needs. I just happen to think that the H1B program is a poor solution to it.

The better option would be for us to offer a form of permanent legal residency to workers who have critical skills that make them attractive to industry. Once they are here, permanent residency along with all of the benefits that entails (freedom to travel, freedom to change jobs) should be part of the package.

I know we do something like this using a scoring system but frankly I think it's administered very poorly based on what I've heard from others. We can do better.

I don't like the idea of a permanent underclass with fewer rights than others. We should encourage emigration and settlement from cultures that integrate well with ours and have the best possible chance of success in our social and economic systems.

Too little is written about the cadre of interests that benefit from illegal immigration of low-status individuals. It may seem cruel, but we do nobody a favor by allowing illegal immigrants to hide in the shadows and subject themselves to abuse at the hands of those that would profit from their lack of power or ability to go to the government for help.

Just like there is an acute shortage of NFL Quarterbacks that are capable of leading a team to a super bowl championship.

The problem with this skills gap myth is that we are looking for people who are better than most of their peers in the industry. The will always be a shortage of top 10% performers in the industry because the top 10% of the industry will always be the same amount.

EDIT: I should just clarify that I'm absolutely in favor of people coming from other countries to work in the US. That said, the H1B in its current form is often just indentured servitude and definitely needs to be adjusted. My statement is specifically addressing the skills gap myth.

Also, that expectation of time frame and quality level has increased significantly since 1985. The reason that has increased is because the average level software developer in 2017 can do that task quite a bit faster and of higher quality than the average software developer could do in 1985.

The definition of acceptable in any market changes with the pool of options available.

If it were not a good option for them, they wouldn't sign up for it, so it has more benefits than costs for them.

In terms of competition.... IT is a very globalized industry already.

> permanent legal residency to workers who have critical skills that make them attractive to industry. Once they are here, permanent residency along with all of the benefits that entails (freedom to travel, freedom to change jobs)

Yes!

The same could be said for child labor though couldn't it?

There is the opportunity for a significant gap between the effectively indentured servitude that H-1B may provide and the opportunities in other countries.

There are loads of Canadians [0] on TNs and H1Bs in the US and most don't particularly care about ever getting a green card. How do you explain their presence if you believe companies only recruit foreigners from poor countries in order to exploit their desire for US residency?

[0] https://techvibes.com/2012/02/24/there-are-350000-canadians-...

Even very high Indian salary would not buy that US lifestyle. Of course many people will like to couch that fact as having friends' circle in US, kids schooling etc makes it difficult to relocate.

I suspect 80%+ of H1B visas go to Indian/Chinese nationals simply because they represent a similarly large proportion of STEM graduates interested in emigrating from their home countries.

Similarly for a few other occupations. And, of course, some want to hedge their bets in case they do want a green card in the future.

TN you can do it, but it's messier.

It costs about $27 in Cali to get a dup of your lost DL [1]; while your Green Card replacement costs... $450! [2]

[1] http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/replace-license.php

[2] https://www.bridge.us/articles/misplace-green-card/

Its very obvious USCIS prays on the fact that most immigrants do not make enough money to actually hire (expensive) lawyer and take them to the court and fight this outrageous fee down to something reasonable. Obviously US citizens have no standing in such lawsuit cause one thing USC can never get is a Green Card :)

Also suing for $450 is ridiculous whether you have money or not. It is a cost of average traffic ticket and most people just pay it without involving any lawyer.

On the base of what, though? It's well known that the USCIS is mostly self sustained (e.g. minimal government funding) so that money has to come from somewhere. I believe the thought is that getting a visa/permanent residency is considered a privilege, not a right.

If they were only the first to be taken to the court for outrages fees.

> It's well known that the USCIS is mostly self sustained

They are part of DHS; therefore founded through DHS that is government founded.

> I believe the thought is that getting a visa/permanent residency is considered a privilege, not a right.

What does this have to do with losing or getting your GC stolen? As long as they can prove it costs around $450 to product a piece of plastic, they are fine in my book.

The most time-consuming part of the process is waiting for your priority date to be current. Once you have your priority date, restarting the process through another company shouldn't really make a difference, since you can just reuse the existing priority date instead of getting a new one.

Theoretically, you can lose your priority date if the previous company cancels your I140. But since it costs thousands of dollars to do that, most companies don't bother.

That, and to switch to a simple points system like most other Anglo countries use. If you have enough points, your residency clock starts ticking as soon as you start working and living in the USA, and doesn't reset or stop unless you commit a serious crime. If the clock counts all the way down, bam, Green Card.

From personal experience I can say that this takes up to two years or longer to get back to status quo in the GC process after switching jobs and reapplying. This is a major disincentive for switching even if there's better pay and position on offer. It also makes talented H1B workers stay away from startups as the GC application process is safer when sponsored by established companies.

That's not fully true AFAIK. The green card (GC) is a 3-step process - PERM, I-140 and GC itself.

If you already have your I-140, unless your previous employer cancels your I-140 (which cost them a few thousand dollars), your new employer can just start over the third step of the process. This is not optimal, sure, but it is not square one either.

So if you can get as far as the I-140/I-485 filing, you should be good to go, though IANAL (and you should retain your own to guide you through this process).